Seaside Home?

[Jonathan H]

No, I'm not suggesting that, nor believe such a thing.

I think Macnaghten met with the Druitts, or a Druitt in 1891.

Or, less likely, after conferring with Farquharason, he merely consulted the press accounts of Druitt's suicide and discovered that in certain details the MP was mistaken.

I therefore advocate what you call one of the 'unattractive' options; that Macnaghten recalled very well that Druitt was not a doctor, but decided to put on file this notion that he might have been (or ... might not have been, if we were misinformed?) a mad physician in case the tale resurfaced in Dorset, and Scotland Yard would take another tabloid bashing -- and perhaps from the new Liberal govt. too -- if their cupboard was bare about the real fiend.

The Ripper saga is quite different from what most secondary sources think.

Melville Macnaghten was scrambling for years trying to protect everybody, as he knew that the repentent murderer had wanted the story to come out a decade after his self-murder -- and it was not going to be a tale which did his beloved Yard any favours.

Not unless he got in first with a veiled version which had the 'police' onto the Ripper before he took the fateful plunge.

Mac's memoirs, written in the shadow of death, conceded that this was not true.

Sims gives us what I argue is a fictionalised glimpse of contact between Mac and the Druitts in 1891 (becoming the Yard and the pals in 1888) in a couple of his Edwardian accounts of the mythical super-efficient hunt for the 'demented doctor'.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jonathan,

I'm playing devil's advocate here. Nothing more.

Why was the reputation of Druitt, or his family, worthy of such high-level obfuscation on the part of Macnaghten?

Regards,

Simon

[Cogidubnus]

I'm sorry...I started this thread with the very best of intentions but looking at the alternate bullying and total sychophancy on it, I'm genuinely sickened and I'd be very much obliged if "admin" would remove the whole thing...

Dave

[Jonathan H]

To Simon

I think that's an excellent question, eg. a whole lot of fuss for a whole lot of nobodies.

On the other hand, Macnaghten was, it is widely reported, a compassionate and affable man who would surely bend over backwards to protect a family who were from his own bourgeoisie class -- especially if that was the price of their privately coming clean to him, in a panic, after their terrible secret leaked in 1891 to their loose-lipped, local MP.

Plus, the Druitts knew the real story: that the police were clueless about their mad Montie until 'some years after'.

Thus protecting their anonymity (the 'friends') also shielded the Yard from the embarrassing revelation that they were hunting a 'ghost' for years and years (not that anbody at the Yard apart from Mac of course, even knew they were even being shielded, or needed to be. Anderson, likke Littlechild, may have thought that the suicided doctor was a garbled, but quite Yard-positive version of the Tumblety fumble).

Also, the shadow of libel is candidly mentioned in the 'West of England' MP story in 'The Bristol Times and Mirror' of Feb 11th 1891, as the reporter dares not say anymore than he already has. Other newspapers were even more fearful of writing 'son of a surgeon', so they muffled that bit incoherently.

When the story returned in 1898, now a semi-official 'scoop' in Griffiths, there are more details (eg. the place and method of suicide, that the killer had a close, social network) yet presumably it is all libel-proofed as it is more expansive but safely so (in 1899 Wlliam Le Queux flatly rejected the 'drowned doctor' solution as nothing more than a reassuring, official excuse, one made up years after 1888 -- and was not completely wrong).

A now safe tale because the date of the suicide is wrong, his profession is wrong, and the conernced friends are really his family. Plus no mention of Dorset. So, Montague Druitt is set up in his posthumous fictional cocoon; unrecoverable to the vulture press or to the respectable circles in whcih the Druitts moved.

We can see the agitation between the sources over how accurately to identify the Druitts. In 'Aberconway' they are what they really were: the family. The Major (and subsequently Sims) has changed this into 'friends' as if a decision was made that the veiling, the fictionalising process, had not gone far enough to create a firewall against recrimination (Anderson also alludies to the menacing libel laws, in his memoirs, if he dared to name names).

So, Mac's motive was not just to protect a respectable albeit minor pillar of the Anglican establishment. It was also to protect -- even cheekily enhance -- the reputation of the Yard.

After all, this really was the true identity of the Ripper -- at least Macnagthen thought so.

[Jonathan H]

What an extrordinary previous post ...?

Why are some so threatened when Simon and I, or others, are engaging in civil debate?

Sycophancy? Nobody on this thread agrees with me ...?

Why does praise for each other's work, not be confused with agreement as to conclusions, set off such a hostile, anti-social raw nerve?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jonathan,

Thank you. Good response.

One more question.

Given MM's proclivity for protecting a family from his own bourgeois class, why mention Druitt in the first instance?

Regards,

Simon

[robhouse]

I'm sorry...I started this thread with the very best of intentions but looking at the alternate bullying and total sychophancy on it, I'm genuinely sickened and I'd be very much obliged if "admin" would remove the whole thing...

Dave

Hi Dave,

Welcome to the world of "Ripper debate." Sycophancy and bullying is par for the course around here.

Rob House

[Jonathan H]

To Simon

I agree that's arguably the potential, deal-breaking flaw in the 'case disguised' argument.

for if your agends is to avoid ruin for the Druitts why on earth put their name in an internal Report, big as life, which also goes onto allege that they had very good reasons to think their deceased member was 'Jack' because he was, no ifs or buts, a sexual maniac?!

The cronies were different as they were never going to name the Druitts, or even identify them as a 'family', but why put on file, forever, their name?

My theory, for what it's worth, is that the Cutbush near-scandal alarmed Macnaghten just sufficiently to prepare a document; eg. he loaded a gun but then never pulled the trigger.

His fear was the the Druitt story was going to break anyhow from Dorset, and at that moment he had to lean towards protecting the Yard rather than the killer's family, who may be about to be semi-exposed anyhow.

It didn't happen, he mothballed the 'Report' but left it there gathering dust in case it was needed.

In 1913, Mac quite falsely claimed to have destroyed any documentation regarding the murderer's identity as if he did not want anybody to look. And if they did it would be for 1888, and they would not find it there.

Why? Well, the family did believe Montie was Jack and so did Macnaghten. That is the core truth the document expresses, though buried in much guff and misdirection.

To Rob House

Who do you mean Rob?

Why don't you call a spade a shovel, mate.

You were petulant to a previous post of mine. I called you on it. I defended my position -- actually it was Simon's, as I understood it -- and then your response was ... nothing?!

Nothing.

Until you popped up here to lend your support to a pointedly bullying and nasty post while piously claiming to be against such vices.

[Phil Carter]

Phil,

There is no proof that JtR was dangerous to anyone but prostitutes. A suspect handcuffed and surrounded by policemen would have posed little danger to anyone. Only in todays health & safety culture would it be deemed unsafe. Without the suspect having a sharp knife at hand the main danger to residents would be a lightning attack of public masturbation rather than killing and maiming.

Hello Jason, all

I have been going over this thread when I read this again... and then it just happened to occur to me.

Would you (or anyone) be kind enough to explain for me how, if it is possible at all without becoming a magician, "A suspect handcuffed and surrounded by policemen (that) would have posed little danger to anyone" could initiate "the main danger to residents"..... " a lightning attack of public masturbation rather than killing and maiming." ???

It is also "always believed" by another poster here that Anderson "possibly" saw this masturbatory occurrance at "possibly" the Seaside Home (See a previous post).

It is reasonable to assume that ANY suspect worthy of a 60 mile transportation would be handcuffed. As very little was known about madness at the time, one would have, under the presumption that the suspect was to be identified for a murder of 5, be handcuffed. He would have been presumed dangerous. Therefore, handcuffs and escort. That is a perfectly reasonable assumption.

So how can a man masturbate with both hands attached to another person on each side of him whilst standing still in front of another person (the witness and /or Anderson)?
Was he handcuffed with two hands together in front of him?
Behind his back perhaps?
We cannot assume that this was an "identification parade through a one way mirror", as is done today. We must assume that the techniques used then were that the man was presented to the witness, "face to face". As was the normal for such identifications I believe. Even if it was "parade like", with a line up, the suspect would still not be able to masturbate. That would mean detaching him from his accompanying minders.. or we presume he is handcuffed at the front.... which I very much doubt would have been done because after all, he was the suspect for the Whitechapel murders, i.e. "Jack the Ripper".

No policeman would let "Jack the Ripper" have free hands, that is a reasonable assumption. Madness, in whatever form is NOW being prescribed to Kosminski, was unknown, and therefore all periods of quiet would NOT mean that according to the men in charge of him that he wasn't dangerous. Or could potentially be. They did not and would not know if he was only a woman attacker.

Especially as this "suspect" was so important that they take the suspect 60 miles and confront the witness.. which as I said is almost unheard of if not unique. With the caveat that the "witness" was so incapacitated that he was unable to be transported 60 miles in the other direction. With the additional caveat that the "witness" ...was not an ex-serving policeman.....was staying at the Seaside Rest Home specifically for policemen and retired policemen. (He would reasonably be assumed to be staying there as he is so incapacitated).

Therefore, on this basis of perfectly reasonable thought, imho, the Seaside Home story has more holes in it than a fishing net. It has to be said.. had this type of evidence been presented within the Maybrick Diary for example, it would have been laughed at.

Masturbating whilst handcuffed.... in front of the witness, or better still, Anderson, Ass Comm of the Met Police even...Bring in an expert on non-self-contact masturbation. No wonder Anderson would have been disgusted.. it's a party trick he was possibly very envious of!

Oh, and the classic punchline... the suspect was AWARE of his being presented as a suspect to the witness. That means he knew why he was there. Knew why he was carted off 60 miles.... "Yeah, right, Ive no problem with that Sarg.. day out at the seaside for me" he replied smilingly. "I don't give a toss for what you suspect me of doing."
Well..perhaps he did give a toss after all.....

A 60 mile trip...all to present a sample of "bashing the bishop" whilst most probably handcuffed...in front of Anderson...

Yes, we can all read the possible scenarios.. but what is likely and what is unlikely is very clear here.

My apologies for any reaction of total incredulity and mocking manuscript scenario at the end. Nothing personal. I suggest Hans Christian Andersen would have been proud of this story. Certainly would have given "The Ugly Duckling" a new twist.

kindly

Phil

[robhouse]

Jonathan,

How was I petulant to a previous post of yours? You said something that was incorrect, and I stated you were wrong, then I explained why you were wrong. What more do you expect me to do? You defended your position? Really? You were wrong. And about the previous post, it was meant as a joke.

RH

[Roy Corduroy]

Well, the family did believe Montie was Jack...

Tom Cutbush's dad went abroad. Macnaghten turned that into "the dad died."

There were rumors about Montie Druitt. Macnaghten turned that into "his family suspected him."

Coulda happened that way, Jonathan, I say to you purely in the spirit of a friendly debate.

Roy

[Phil Carter]

In 1913, Mac quite falsely claimed to have destroyed any documentation regarding the murderer's identity as if he did not want anybody to look. And if they did it would be for 1888, and they would not find it there.

Hello Jonathan,

A point of order perhaps?.. and a batch of questions.

The MM was found in amongst the papers and the files on JTR in the 1960's by Robin Odell. These files contained, I believe, all documents on the Whitechapel Murder series and the last document was, if I am not mistaken, dated 1896. Please correct me if I am wrong?

The files were not separated into "years".. they were stored all together..so anyone "looking" for them would have seen "all" the documents.

The only way in which the original MM would not have been seen in that lot, would have been if it had been replaced there after his last known statement about JTR..which would in turn question the similar comments of other policemen, having read, in situ, the MM.

We would therefore have to consider the presumtion that those commenting on the Druitt affair, whilst not naming him, had seen this document privately. We have have to presume again, that this would be at Scotland Yard, whilst Macnaghten was in residence there, or do we also consider that the document was shown to these other people at his private residence? In which case, when did he replace it within the files himself? Or did he show them any notes kept privately at his home?


kindly

Phil

[Jonathan H]

To Roy

I totally agree with this hair-raising angle; the theory taken to its diablocal end.

Because a source, by that I mean Macnaghten and his proxies, which you can show to be deceitful, is thus inherently not a viable source to rest a major theory upon. How could it be? It's author is not to be trusted.

Catch-22!

Exactly as you argue: if the stuff about Cutbush, 'Kosminski', and Ostrog (and Sadler in 'Aberconway') is 'sexed-up' to the point of distortion, then why aren't all bets off regarding M. J. Druitt too?

My counter-argument, and it is up to you as to how strong it is, is that Druitt, unlike 'Kosminski' and Ostrog, does not begin as a Ripper suspect in the [pitiful] extant record with Macnaghten.

It begins with M.P. Farquharson, and his surviving relations in Dorset, and therefore is independent of Mac's machinations, whether they be by accient or design.

But still your question persists.

What if Mac examined Druitt's tale, in detail, and found it wanting (he did not kill himself the same night as the Kelly murder -- damn!) and therefore he kept it hyped-up for the government (never used) and the credulous cronies (who did use it)?

You start to feel that a nice guy like Mac is growing horns and a tail before your eyes!

Maybe then he really did just have a lousy memory (the Cutbush and Cutbush mistake is easily the worst shocker!) that was intermittently sharp, and this was enough to get a somewhat underserved rep as a memory marvel?

Maybe he himself shelved the 'Report' because he knew he had hardly checked a thing.

Four years later, he affably reached into a drawer and brought out the draft for Griffiths, forgetting that version was an even worse bit of unchecked blather ...

To Rob House

I apologise for mistaking your joke. I too have been caught out here with jokes that have fallen flat and deeply offended people, because email is not accompanied by audio, and so on.

You ended up adding to the sludge and mean-spiritedness which plagues message boards on this subject.

When you wrote that I was wrong, you just left it that, no explantion -- as if your word is law on 'Kosminski'. It's not a good look, mate. I had to ask, to find out why, and then, subsequently, you never dealt with the follow-up post about Simon's overall theory: that the first part of the Marginalia simply repeats the gist of Anderson's memoir(s), but the 'Seaside Home' endpaper, arguably, shows evidence of a fading memory because it introduces new elements which are implausible.

[jason_c]

Hello Jason, all

I have been going over this thread when I read this again... and then it just happened to occur to me.

Would you (or anyone) be kind enough to explain for me how, if it is possible at all without becoming a magician, "A suspect handcuffed and surrounded by policemen (that) would have posed little danger to anyone" could initiate "the main danger to residents"..... " a lightning attack of public masturbation rather than killing and maiming." ???

It is also "always believed" by another poster here that Anderson "possibly" saw this masturbatory occurrance at "possibly" the Seaside Home (See a previous post).

It is reasonable to assume that ANY suspect worthy of a 60 mile transportation would be handcuffed. As very little was known about madness at the time, one would have, under the presumption that the suspect was to be identified for a murder of 5, be handcuffed. He would have been presumed dangerous. Therefore, handcuffs and escort. That is a perfectly reasonable assumption.

So how can a man masturbate with both hands attached to another person on each side of him whilst standing still in front of another person (the witness and /or Anderson)?
Was he handcuffed with two hands together in front of him?
Behind his back perhaps?
We cannot assume that this was an "identification parade through a one way mirror", as is done today. We must assume that the techniques used then were that the man was presented to the witness, "face to face". As was the normal for such identifications I believe. Even if it was "parade like", with a line up, the suspect would still not be able to masturbate. That would mean detaching him from his accompanying minders.. or we presume he is handcuffed at the front.... which I very much doubt would have been done because after all, he was the suspect for the Whitechapel murders, i.e. "Jack the Ripper".

No policeman would let "Jack the Ripper" have free hands, that is a reasonable assumption. Madness, in whatever form is NOW being prescribed to Kosminski, was unknown, and therefore all periods of quiet would NOT mean that according to the men in charge of him that he wasn't dangerous. Or could potentially be. They did not and would not know if he was only a woman attacker.

Especially as this "suspect" was so important that they take the suspect 60 miles and confront the witness.. which as I said is almost unheard of if not unique. With the caveat that the "witness" was so incapacitated that he was unable to be transported 60 miles in the other direction. With the additional caveat that the "witness" ...was not an ex-serving policeman.....was staying at the Seaside Rest Home specifically for policemen and retired policemen. (He would reasonably be assumed to be staying there as he is so incapacitated).

Therefore, on this basis of perfectly reasonable thought, imho, the Seaside Home story has more holes in it than a fishing net. It has to be said.. had this type of evidence been presented within the Maybrick Diary for example, it would have been laughed at.

Masturbating whilst handcuffed.... in front of the witness, or better still, Anderson, Ass Comm of the Met Police even...Bring in an expert on non-self-contact masturbation. No wonder Anderson would have been disgusted.. it's a party trick he was possibly very envious of!

Oh, and the classic punchline... the suspect was AWARE of his being presented as a suspect to the witness. That means he knew why he was there. Knew why he was carted off 60 miles.... "Yeah, right, Ive no problem with that Sarg.. day out at the seaside for me" he replied smilingly. "I don't give a toss for what you suspect me of doing."
Well..perhaps he did give a toss after all.....

A 60 mile trip...all to present a sample of "bashing the bishop" whilst most probably handcuffed...in front of Anderson...

Yes, we can all read the possible scenarios.. but what is likely and what is unlikely is very clear here.

My apologies for any reaction of total incredulity and mocking manuscript scenario at the end. Nothing personal. I suggest Hans Christian Andersen would have been proud of this story. Certainly would have given "The Ugly Duckling" a new twist.

kindly

Phil

Phil,

Apologies, I was being flippant about the lightning attack of masturbation by Kosminski. I simply wished to downplay any physical danger to residents of the Seaside Home during an ID procedure. The physical dangers to women and children at the Seaside Home had been brought up earlier in the thread.

I fully realise the seaside home story has a lot of holes in it. This doesnt make it untrue. It was likely written by a man with detailed knowledge of the case. For this reason it should'nt be easily dismissed as the Maybrick Diary. Simply because its not immediately obvious to us why an ID would occur in Brighton does not mean it didnt occur.

Apologies for my short reply, its late here, my bed is calling me.

[Phil Carter]

Phil,

Apologies, I was being flippant about the lightning attack of masturbation by Kosminski. I simply wished to downplay any physical danger to residents of the Seaside Home during an ID procedure. The physical dangers to women and children at the Seaside Home had been brought up earlier in the thread.

I fully realise the seaside home story has a lot of holes in it. This doesnt make it untrue. It was likely written by a man with detailed knowledge of the case. For this reason it should'nt be easily dismissed as the Maybrick Diary. Simply because its not immediately obvious to us why an ID would occur in Brighton does not mean it didnt occur.

Apologies for my short reply, its late here, my bed is calling me.

Hello Jason,

Thank you for taking the time and effort to reply. Sleep well.

best wishes

Phil